Mitt Romney: 'I would arm the Syrian rebels'

Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

Romney is to make the proposal on Monday in what his campaign team has billed as a major foreign policy speech in Lexington, Virginia.

In extracts published in advance, he opened up the prospect, if he becomes president, of a US-Iranian proxy war being fought in Syria.

"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran - rather than sitting on the sidelines," he said.

81. The US is really an aggressive nation, TPTB wrap it and sugarcoat it. We are really an

aggressive nation IMO. My entire life this nation has been at war, planning war or talking about war. And the war profits are great for the MIC. In terms of world peace the US could do a better job, probably mostly by getting the F out of all of the other countries we are in ... no wonder people get pissed off at the US.

87. I have absolutely no doubt that in my remaining years we'll see some

pretty bad times if we stay the course with the MIC profiteers. It's a ghastly way to be profiteers. And, the part that really galls me is those that wave the flag for war are often very distant and it's out of sight, out of mind. And now we will have drone wars. sailing in robotic death and destruction. It's all so horrific I pale for words.

3. First of all

Mittnocchio needs to get Netanyahu's dick out of that orifice on his face. Second, the Iraqi war was the proxy war with Iran. Third, what jackass plans to get on national TV describe not his policy but his tactics on foreign conflicts. Finally, mittnocchio and lyin ryan had their first intelligence briefing just before the debate. If he discusses arming the rebels than he may be giving away national security secrets. What a dumbass. Also he must not have a good grasp of history. Does he understand who bin Laden was before he became the #1 enemy of the US?

10. Misguided direction????? Are you serious?

Why should we get involved in THEIR civil war? Do you not remember what happened when we armed Afghanistan? They are using those weapons to shoot at our troops (along with soviet weapons). Granted Afghanistan was not a civil war but an invasion by the Soviets, but the point is the same. The worst thing we can do is to pour weapons into that country.

Did France, Spain, England, Germany, etc... step in and say "whoah now... let's cut this out" during our civil war? Some things we need to stay out of.

21. Ok, point taken....

and I have had a few drinks...

BUT STILL.... we need to stay out of what is going on over there. That is one of the reasons that the M.E. hates us is that we stick our noses in every where it doesn't really belong. Syria can have a civil war and sort things out on their own. If they don't you will end up with an unstable government that can't hold things together. Look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan. We stepped in (ok, in Afghanistan we should have. I can agree with that) and now that sewer of the middle east is an even bigger sewer of the middle east.

Things are tribal in the middle east. Even Islam isn't a united affair. Putting our fingers in the pie only adds to the problems because if our "side" wins, the other Arab nations will see them as "western puppets".

Am I making sense here?

BTW I was married to a M.E. woman .... let me tell you, they are OLD SCHOOL CRAZY! But that's a different story all together. Just wanted to mention that because dealing with their people on a very personal basis for a couple of decades really gives you an insight. Know what I mean?

22. I would not extrapolate from my first wife to an entire region or ethnicity

24. Oh lad... you don't know my ex wife.....

Trust me... you WOULD extrapolate.

Better yet... spend a few decades getting to know my ex-mother-in-law. I cannot even begin to... never mind. Unless you live it you can't understand it.

Very seriously. We don't understand the M.E. because we don't have the first iota of how to think like they do. What we see as rational and what they see as rational are COMPLETELY different. I know because I lived it for many many years. It is maddening.

30. You really need to marry someone from the M.E. and then get back with me.

Lets try a different tact of logic here....

Would you agree with this.......

1) The vast majority of common folks in the M.E are uneducated (not talking city dwellers, but dirt farmers)

2) Would you not agree that most people in the M.E. currently are prone to reaction to what their Imam tells them?

3) Would you not agree that ANY COUNTRY would find it offensive for an outside party to meddle in it's affairs?

4) Would you not agree that uneducated people are very easy to get "riled up" by someone with nefarious reasons? I.e. an Imam with a political agenda?

5) Would you not agree that since Syria has been a closed off country being controlled by a non-western friendly dictator that most Syrians would treat us with suspicion?

6) Would you not agree that getting involved in a civil war in Syria would be a war we could hardly afford at the moment?

In an interview that I watched with someone who actually spoke pashtun, a villager was quoted as saying "I don't care about the Taliban, I don't care about the U.S., I wish they would all go to hell and we could get on with our lives.

I think you will find that is the sentiment of most of the common people you will meet in the M.E.

25. This misguided direction is the taking sides.

The administration has funneled millions of dollars of equipment to armed insurgents. Not guns - not openly, anyway - but that is of little importance. I think you misunderstood me. I support the US staying out of it.

8. +1

43. And specifically, Osama Bin Laden, a man who became a CIA partner?....

...Of course, it didn't help the situation at all when we pulled all US support as soon as the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989, about a month after George H. W. Bush's inauguration. I guess one could assume that Bush was closing the door on the Iran-Contra Scandal which was blamed on Reagan but was actually masterminded by Bush as Reagan's VP.

19. that's what I am thinking

64. Yep. Romney has shaken his fist at Russia, China, now Syria.

The american people will see that as a man determined to go to war with someone, anyone, just so he can be a war time president. meanwhile, our troops come home in body bags and our national debt increases.

48. Were we Americans better off with pro-American dictators in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia?

Were those dictators keeping us safe from terrorists by keeping their weapons stockpiles under tight control? "Regime change" is what most people who live under a dictatorship want.

Are you saying that US support for that in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt was some kind of surreptitious weapons proliferation program aimed at providing anti-air missiles to the Syrian opposition? UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was adopted on March 17, 2011. The protests against Assad in Syria had just begun two days earlier on March 15. It is hard to see UN/US/NATO action against Libya as intended as any kind of a weapons proliferation program aimed at Syrian opposition.

Should we have pushed Gaddafi, Ben Ali and Mubarak to fight their ungrateful citizens and supplied those selfless leaders with a flow of weapons (as Russia is doing for Syria) to make sure that local people knew their place and stayed in it? "You may not be happy living under a dictator, but for everyone's (especially our) good that has to be your fate. Besides you are Arabs and we all know you don't mind not having any rights."

and that many of these missiles would be going to Syria. I'm not saying we did regime change in Libya to send Gaddafi's SA-7 and SA-16 missiles and Benghazi Jihadis to Syria, just that we did it knowing that proliferation of both was a likely outcome, with a strong inkling of where many of them would end up.

Different intent, even if the same outcome.

There are several types of shoulder-operated MANPADs that were looted from Libyan arsenals. The photo below shows the SA-7 (left) and what appears to be an improved type 7 or the more capable SA-16 (right). In addition, there is an unknown number of SA-24, that are Stinger-equivalents, (as shown in the large photo below about to be hauled off in the cargo bed of Libyan rebel pickup truck). The threat posed by loose MANPADs was well understood by US officials (see, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/MANPADS.html;http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/28/The_Taliban_Doesn%E2%80%99t_Have_Stingers), but these concerns were set aside in the rush to regime change in Tripoli that involved the US Ambassador after his arrival in Bengahzi during April last year directing Libyan rebel groups.

As for whether we should have done it, regardless, I have to ask you: was liberating Afghanistan and Kosovo from the Soviets "worth" the price of blowback we paid on 9/11? If you answer yes, I suggest you ask that question of the families of the victims and check yourself in for observation.

BTW: a major reason why we seem to have called a halt to escalating regime change in Syria (unless it's just a pause for the re-election) is that some people in Washington seem to have finally recognized the escalating dangers of blowback there, including the looting of Syria arsenals by our friends, the Salafists. Better late than never.

38. Thus Again Proving Rmoney is as Dumb as a Fence Post

We likely have been arming the Syrian rebels for months now--

Just like we armed the Taliban/Mujahadeen fighters in the Afghan war against the old Soviet army.
that was the largest covert operation in U.S. history. Read the book Harry Wilson's War .. It's all there.

when we got the shoulder-launched Stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujahadeen, the war
ended shortly thereafter.

45. And isn't arming Syria similar to the way we armed the mujahideen

which led to our problems today? I'm not in anyway equating the Syrian rebels to the mujahideen, but as Obama stated this past week, giving heavy weapons to the rebels only increases the chances of these same weapons falling into terrorists hands.

49. Tune in for tomorrow's Romney Statement:

"Superman wears Romney PJs, you know. I had to give him all kinds of tips about how to stop that giant asteroid and stuff. When I'm not playing golf with Batman (he needs to work on his game!) I'm usually very busy saving the world from the forces of evil."

50. Where Does Romney Think The Rebels Are Getting Their Arms From Today

No source on this but I would expect that many of the rebel arms are coming from Turkey with American help. It is a proxy war with Russia arming Assad either directly or indirectly through Iran. Doing what Romney proposes would mean Russia would counter that with the result being an escalation in civilian deaths so Romney needs to be careful with his simplistic rantings on foreign affairs. Not only that but Romney is not talking about foreign policy here but military tactics so what ever happened with "we only have one President at a time". It is like Colin Powell said of Romney not long ago, "think". Obviously, Romney has not heeded Powell's sage advise.

62. This isn't real bright

Doesn't this clown understand that Syria's two biggest supporters in the UN are Russia and China. You make a knee jerk reaction move like supplying arms the the Syrian Rebels and you loose any possible UN support from these two countries should the US need them at some later date.

68. Proof Rmoney is a Warmongering Psycho. n/t

70. Even the Israelis don't want this.

Listening to Israelis response on BBC. They were completely against waging an Iran/US proxy war in Syria. Not to mention Mitt ignores some very real bit of history with the indiscriminate arming of rebels.

72. More weapons in Syria could trigger 'all-out war' -- Mitt grandstanding is NOT FOREIGN POLICY

It was also a day when Gov. Mitt Romney pledged that, if elected president, he’d change the course of events here.

Among other things, he wants to green-light heavy weapons to the Syrian rebels “who share our values” in order to “defeat the tanks, helicopters and fighter jets” of the Bashar Assad regime.

For its part, the Obama administration says it has refrained from supplying the rebels with weapons out of concern that they could end up in terrorist hands.

“If Turkey, a NATO member, is fed up and invades Syria, NATO would have no choice but to intervene in Syria. And you can bet that Iran would become involved, and this could quickly turn into a region-wide conflict between Turkey, NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the one hand, and Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah and Syria on the other.”